- Michael Messner

Transcription

- Michael Messner

International Review for the
Sociology
of Sport
http://irs.sagepub.com/
When bodies are weapons: Masculinity and violence in Sport
Michael A. Messner
International Review for the Sociology of Sport 1990 25: 203
DOI: 10.1177/101269029002500303
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://irs.sagepub.com/content/25/3/203
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
International Sociology of Sport Association
Additional services and information for International Review for the Sociology of Sport can
be found at:
Email Alerts: http://irs.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://irs.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://irs.sagepub.com/content/25/3/203.refs.html
>> Version of Record - Jan 1, 1990
What is This?
Downloaded from irs.sagepub.com at UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA on September 15, 2014
When bodies are weapons:
and violence in Sport
1
Masculinity
Michael A. Messner
Program for the Study of Woman and Men in Society, Taper Hall 331M
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089-4352 U.S.A.
Abstract
This paper utilizes a feminist theoretical framework to explore the contemporary social
meanings of sports violence. Two levels of meaning are explored: first, the broad, sociocultural and ideological meanings of sports violence as mediated spectacle; second, the
meanings which male athletes themselves construct. On the social/ideological level, the
analysis draws on an emergent critical/feminist literature which theoretically and
historically situates sports violence as a practice which helps to construct hegemonic
masculinity. And drawing on my own in-depth interviews with male former athletes, a
feminist theory of gender identity is utilized to examine the meaningswhich athletes
themselves construct around their own participation in violent sports. Finally, the links
between these two levels of analysis are tentatively explored: how does the athlete’s
construction of meaning surrounding his participation in violent sports connect with the
larger social construction of masculinities and men’s power relations with women?
Introduction
&dquo;Violence in sport&dquo; is widely viewed as a social problem. Scholars of sport have
focussed on two clusters of questions, two first being the problem of
definition: what is violence? - how can we differentiate between aggression and
violence? - between legitimate and illegitimate violence? (Bredemeier & Shields,
1986; Smith, 1986). The second common cluster of questions concern cause and
effect: do organized sports offer a socially-acceptable context in which to express
a naturally aggressive human essence - the catharsis thesis of Moore (1966) and
Lorenz (1966) - or is sports violence a socially-constructed and learned behavior
which actually serves to legitimize and foster more aggressive behaviors? On this
question, the weight of social-scientific evidence clearly supports the social
constructionist argument (Coakley, 1978; Schneider & Eitzen, 1983). As for the
issue of defining aggression and violence, there is a clearly no consensus. In fact,
though precise definitions of aggression and violence are necessary for laboratory
experiments common among psychologists, those intent on interpreting the
broader social meanings of violence in sport may find that &dquo;no single definition of
sports violence is either possible or desirable&dquo; (Goldstein, 1983). Instead, it
seems reasonable to simply begin with the assumption that in many of our most
popular sports, the achievement of goals (scoring and winning) is predicated on
the successful utilization of violence - that is, these are activities in which the
human body is routinely turned into a weapon to be used against other bodies,
resulting in pain, serious injury, and even death (Atyeo, 1979; Underwood, 1979;
typically
Sabo,1986).
204
This paper utilizes
a
feminist theoretical framework to ~
explore
the
contemporary social and psychological meanings of sports violence. In any
analysis of sport it is crucial to recognize the distinction between, on the one hand,
its broader social, cultural and ideological meanings as mediated spectacle, and,
on the other hand, the meanings which athletes construct as participants (Oriard,
1981). This paper will focus on these two levels of meaning, linking them through
feminist analysis of violence and masculinities. On the social/ideological level,
the analysis will draw on an emergent critical/feminist literature which
theoretically and historically situates violent sports as a practice which helps to
construct hegemonic masculinity. And drawing on my own in-depth interviews
with former athletes 2, a feminist theory of masculine gender identity will be
utilized to examine the meanings which athletes themselves construct around
their own participation in the violent, rule-bound world of sport. Finally, thc links
between these two levels of analysis will be explored: how does the athlete’s
construction of meaning surrounding his participation in violent sports connect
with the largcr social construction of masculinitics’?
a
’
Sport, Violence and the Gender Order
The modern institution of organized sport, as we now know it, emerged as a malc
response to social changes which undermined many of the bases of men’s
traditional partriarchal power, authority, and identity. Proletarianization,
urbanization, modernization and (in the United States) the closing of the frontier
all served to undermine patriarchal forms of masculinity. And, especially by the
turn of the century, the conscious agency of women provided a direct threat to the
ideology of male superiority. Within the context of this &dquo;crisis of masculinity&dquo;
(Kimmel, 1987), organized sports became increasingly important as &dquo;a primary
masculinity-validating experience&dquo; (Dubbert, 1979: 164). Sport was a malccreated homosocial cultural sphere which provided (white, middle- and upperclass) men with psychological separation from the perceived &dquo;feminization&dquo; of
society, while also providing dramatic symbolic &dquo;proof&dquo; of the natural superiority
of men over women (Messner, 1988). But it is not simply the bonding among men
and the separation from women, but the physicality of the activity, which gives
sport its salience in gender relations. Crossett (1990) traces in the rise of 19th
century sport in Britain an ideological elevation of male sexual superiority, and by
extension, a naturalization of men’s power over women. And women’s exclusion
from most aspects of this physical activity contributed to men’s continued control
over women’s bodies (Lenskyj: 1986).
A number of feminist analyses have suggested that one of the key elements in
the elevation of the male-body-as-superior is the use (or threat) of violence.
Brownmiller (1975), for instance, argues that although various forms of control
(psychological, ideological, etc.) are utilized, ultimately men’s control of women
rests on violence. According to Dunning (1986), historical and cross-cultural
evidence shows that the balance of power tips more strongly toward men when
violence and fighting are endemic parts of social life. With industrialization and
modernization, as social life became more rationalized and &dquo;civilized,&dquo; more
controls were instituted on the use of violence, and thus the balance of power
205
tended to shift more toward women. Men responded to this threat to thcir power
by instituting &dquo;combat sports&dquo; such as boxing and rugby:
such games were justified ideologically, partly as training grounds for war,
in terms of their use in the education of military and administrative
leaders in Britain’s expanding empirc, and partly as vehicles for the inculcation
and expression of &dquo;manliness&dquo; (Dunning. 1986:271 ).
...
partly
Clearly, it was not simply a &dquo;feminization of society&dquo; which men feared: that
could have been countered simply by creating homosocial clubs for men. It was
also the fear of the los.s of male power and priailege - especially among middle
class men - which formed the basis for the popularization of violent sports (Gorn,
1986). Sport, in its present (violent) forms, then, tends to support male
dominance not simply through the exclusion or marginalization of females, but
through the association of &dquo;males and maleness with valued skills and the
sanctioned use of aggression/forcc/violcncc&dquo; (Bryson, 1987:349). In promoting
dominance and submission (Bennett, et. al, 1987), in equating force and
aggression with physical strength, domination, and power (Theberge, 1987),
modern sport naturalized the equation of maleness with violence, thus lending
support and legitimation to patriarchy (Bianchi, 1980; Hall, 1987; Komisar, 1980;
Sabo & Runfola, 1980).
Yet the simple equation of &dquo;male violence&dquo; with &dquo;patriarchy&dquo; is analytically
problematic. First, the term &dquo;male violence&dquo; tends to suggest that violence is an
essential feature of maleness, rather than a socially-learned feature of a certain
kind of masculinity. Indeed, concrete social-scientific examinations of violence
show that there is no convincing evidence that men are genetically or hormonallypredisposed to violent behavior (Fausto-Stcrling, 1985; Plcck, 1982). In fact, the
weight of evidence supports the contention that most males are not comfortable
committing acts of violence: Violent behavior is learned behavior, and some men
learn it better than others (Ewing, 1983; Pleck, 1982 Scher & Stevens, 1987). As
Connell ( 198>: 4) has argued,
A crucial fact about men is that masculinity is not all of a piece. There have
always been different kinds, some more closely associated with violence than
others. This is why one should not talk of &dquo;male violence&dquo; or of &dquo;males&dquo; doing
this or that - phrasing which smuggles back in the idea of a biological uniformity
in social behaviour.
recognition that at any given moment there are various masculinities hegemonic, some marginalized, some subordinated - suggests that the term
&dquo;patriarchy,&dquo; as it is commonly used, is overly simplistic (Carrigan, et. al., 1987;
Connell, 1987). Not only does the concept of patriarchy tend to view &dquo;men&dquo; as an
undifferentiated category, it tends to downplay the fluidity and contradictions
that exist within and between gender categories. Connell suggests instead that we
utilize the term &dquo;gender order,&dquo; which can be defined as &dquo;the current state of
play&dquo; in the dynamics of the power relations of sex, gender, and sexuality. Men as
a group do enjoy power and privilege at the expense of women. Yet this power
and privilege is by no means complete, total, or uncontested, nor is shared equally
among all men. Hegemonic masculinity - that form of masculinity which is
The
some
ascendent - is defined in relation to the subordination of women and in relation to
other (subordinatcd, marginalized) masculinities.
206
more fluid concept of the &dquo;gender order&dquo; allows us to
shed light on an otherwise confusing irony: although men are the major
perpetrators of violence, and one overall effect of this violence is the continued
subordination of women, a large proportion of men’s violence is directed at other
men (Connell, 1987: 13). Within the world of organized sport, men are almost
exclusively the perpetrators as well as the victims of violence (Sabo, 1986).
Conceptualizing the gender order as a system of competing masculinities allows
us to begin to ask the question us to how violence among men contributes to the
construction of power relations between men and women. In order to begin to
shed light on this issue, it is necessary to explore (1) how and why some men
become violent: what meanings do men construct around their own violence
against other men? And (2) what is the. broader cultural meaning of men’s
violence against other men? What role does some men’s violence against other
men play in the current state of play of the gender order?
The utilization of this
begin
to
is a perfect place to investigate these questions, since it is an
in which individual males actively construct mcaning around their acts of
aggression and violence and, given the fact that sport is a public spectacle, these
acts often take on important and controversial ideological meanings. Next, the
meanings that former athletes have constructed around their own participation in
violent sports will be examined. After analyzing these meanings within a feminist
social-psychological theory, we will then return an examination of how these
men’s actions and self-definitions fit into the current state of play of the present
gender order.
Organized sport
arena
Athletes: The Meaning of Violence
With the possible exception of boxing, perhaps the position in modern sport
which requires the most constant levels of physical aggressiveness is that of
lineman in U.S. football. Though T.V. cameras focus primarily on those who
carry, throw, catch, and kick the ball, the majority of the players on the field are
lining up a few inches apart from each other, and, on each play, snarling,
grunting, cursing, and slamming their large, powerful, and heavily armored
bodies into each other. Blood, bruises, broken bones, and concussions are
commonplace here. Marvin Upshaw, now 36-years old, was a lineman in
professional football for nine years, following successful high school and college
careers. Obviously an intelligent and sensitive man, he seemed a bit stung when
asked how he could submit himself to such punishment for so many years.
You know, a lot of people look at a lineman and they say, &dquo;oh, man, you gotta
be some kinda animal to get down there and beat on each other like that.&dquo; But
it’s just like a woman giving birth. A woman giving birth. Everybody says, you
know, &dquo;That’s a great accomplishment: she must be really beautiful.&dquo; And I do
too - I think it’s something that’s an act of God, that’s unreal. Bilt, she hasn’t
done nothing that she wasn’t built for. See what I’m saying? Now here I am,
260, 270 pounds: and that’s my position. My physical self helped me. I can do
that. I can do that. I couldn’t run out for no pass - I’d have looked like a fool
runnin’ out for a pass, see what I mean? But due to my good speed and my
207
strength and my physical physique, that’s what I’m built for. Just like a truck
carrying a big caterpillar: you see the strain, but that’s what it’s built for, so as
far as that being a real big accomplishment, it is, but it’s not. That’s all you were
built for.
Upshaw’s comparisons of the aggressive uses of his body in football with a
giving birth and with a truck is telling: it suggests one of the major
paradoxes of men’s construction of meaning surrounding the uses of their bodies
woman
weapons. On the one hand, so many of the men I interviewed felt a strong need
naturalize their capacities for aggression and violence: men wearing helmets
and pads repeatedly engaging in bonecrushing collisions with each other is simply
&dquo;an act of God,&dquo; &dquo;like a woman giving birth.&dquo; Yet on the other hand, there is the
clear knowledge that the bodies of successful lincmen are, like trucks, &dquo;built&dquo; by
human beings to do a specific job. Time after time, I heard former athletes,
almost in the same breath, talk of their &dquo;natural&dquo; and &dquo;God-given&dquo; talent nnd of
the long hours, days, and years of training, work and sacrifice that went into the
development of their bodies and their skills. &dquo;I was a natural,&dquo; former
professional football star Macarthur Lane told me, &dquo;Just about every hour of the
day when I wasn’t sleeping or eating. I’d be on the playground competing.&dquo;
as
to
&dquo;
Similarly, Jack Tatum, who in his years with the Oakland Raiders was known as
&dquo;The Assassin&dquo; for his fierce and violent &dquo;hits&dquo; on opposing receivers3, described
himself as a &dquo;natural hitter.&dquo; But his descriptions of his earliest experiences in
high school football tell a different story. Though he soon began to develop a
reputation as a fierce defensive back, at first, hitting people bothered him:i
When I first started playing, if I would hit a guy hard and he wouldn’t get up, it
would bother me. [But] when I was a sophomore in high school, first game, I
knocked out two quarterbacks, and people loved it. The coach loved it.
Everybody loved it... The more you play, the more you realize that it is just a
part of the game-somebody’s gonna get hurt. It could be you, it could be himmost of the time it’s better if it’s him.
This story suggests that the tendency to utilize violence against others to
achieve a goal in the sports context is learned behavior. Two excellent studies of
young ice hockey players corroborate this: thc combination of violent adult
athletic role models as well as rewards from coachcs, peers, and the community
for the willingness to successfully utilize violence create a context in which
violence becomes normative behavior (Smith, 1974; Vaz, 1980). Athletes who
earn reputations as aggressive &dquo;hitters&dquo; can often gain a certain level of status in
the community and among peers, thus anchoring (at least temporarily) an
otherwise insecure masculine identity. Louie Gelina, for instance developed a
reputation as a very successful high school athlete, largely due to his often ruthless
aggressiveness. By his own admission, he would often
do mean things, like beat people up. On the football field, I’d be dirty, like
I’d kick guys in the groin... or in basketball, I’d undercut people. And I think it
was mainly to earn their respect. It was like I had to let them know that, hey,
I’m superstud and you, you’re second class, you’re not as good.
...
But Gelina discovered, as have many athletes, that the use of his body as a
weapon - and the support of the community - can cut both ways. His athletic
career, and his sense of identity that came with it, unraveled quickly when he
injured his knee just before the state championship game.
208
I was hurt. I couldn’t play, and I got a lot of flack from everybody. The coach,
you know: &dquo;Are you faking it?&dquo; And I was in the whirlpool and [teammate]
John came in and said &dquo;You fucking pussy!&dquo; I still remember that to this day.
That hurt more than the injury. Later, people told me it was my fault because
we lost, and I just couldn’t handle that - not just coaches and other players, but
people in the whole town... it hurt, it just really hurt.
Gelina’s &dquo;sin&dquo;
was to refuse to conform to what Sabo (1986) calls &dquo;the pain
important a part of the structure and values of the sportsworld.
Gelina had previously found himself rewarded for using his own body to punish
other men, but that violence against other men ultimately resulted in violence
against his own body. Yet what ultimately &dquo;hurt more than the injury&dquo; was finding
himself ostracized, his masculinitv called into question, when he refused to
further &dquo;give up his body for the good of the team.&dquo; And it is highly significant
that this insult, hurled at him by a teammate, is phrased in rclation to a violent
reference to a female body-part.~’ Here we can see an illustration of what
principle,&dquo;
so
Kaufman (1987: 2) calls &dquo;the triad of men’s violence,&dquo; the three corners of which
are violence against women, violence against other men, and violence against
one’s self.
Louie Gclina never played organized sports again. He had not only lost his
in the community; he had also lost that tentative and precarious sense of
masculine identity which he had constructed through his sports successes. Given
these high stakes, it is not surprising that many athletes do &dquo;choose&dquo; to be hitters,
and to &dquo;give their bodies up for the team.&dquo; But it is not enough to explain away the
use of physical violence in sports as simply the result of rewards and punishments
status
handed out by coaches, peers, and the community for compliance or noncompliance with &dquo;the pain principle&dquo;. Despite the intentions of some coaches and
sport psychologists,athletes are not simply the result of some Pavlovian system of
reward and punishment. They are human beings, capable of reflection and moral
deliberation. Their decisions to participate - or not participate - in violent sports
take place within a complex social/psychological context. And, as we shall see,
their decisions - and the meanings that they attribute to them - are deeply
gendered.
Masculinity, the Rules, and Violence
In order to properly conceptualize the masculinity/sports relationship, it is crucial
recognize that young males do not come to the institution of sport as &dquo;blank
slates,&dquo; ready to be &dquo;socialized&dquo; into the world of masculinity. Rather, young
males come to their first experience as athletes with already-gendering5 identities
(Messner, 1987a, 1987b). As Chodorow (1978) has argued, early developmental
experiences, rooted in the fact that it is women who mother, create a very
different balance between separation and attachment in males and females, thus
setting the stage for different kinds of problems with relationships, identity, and
sexuality throughout the lifecourse (Rubin, 1982). One of the results of these
differences is that young males tend to approach sports - and violence in sports differently than females do. Despite the fact that few males truly enjoy hitting,
and one has to be socialized into participating in much of the violence that is
commonplace in sports, males appear to be predisposed to view aggression,
to
209
within the rule-bound structure of
in a psychological sense.
sports,
as
legitimate, natural,
and
even
&dquo;safe&dquo;
Gender identity is never a completed project, but always a developmental
process which unfolds within a social context. Sports is a fascinating context in
which to examine the unfolding of masculine gender identity. One of the most
important developmental themes for males is their ambivalence toward intimacy:
while craved by males, attachment also constitutes a major threat to the firm
psychological boundaries around a fragile masculine identity (Chodorow, 1978;
Rubin, 1982). In fact, males tend to perceive vulnerability, danger, and thus the
possibility of violence in situations of close affiliation (Gilligan, 1982). Young
males bring this ambivalence toward intimacy to all their social interactions,
including their first sports experiences. In observing differences between how
girls and boys play games and sports, Piaget (1965) and Lever ( 1976) noted that
girls tend to have more &dquo;pragmatic&dquo; and &dquo;flexible&dquo; orientations to the rules-they
are more prone to make exceptions and innovations in the middle of a game in
order to make the game more &dquo;fair.&dquo; Boys, on the other hand, tend to have a
more firm, evcn inflexible oricntation to the rules of the game - to them, a clear
and consistent set of rules are what protects &dquo;fairness.&dquo; This masculine reification
of the rules, according to Gilligan (1982), creates a &dquo;safe&dquo; place for the
ambivalent and insecure structure of a developing masculine identity not simply
because it meshes with their conception of &dquo;fairness,&dquo; but perhaps more
importantly, because it provides clear-cut boundaries around men’s affiliations
with each other. Here men can develop a ccrtain kind of closeness with each other
while not having to deal with the kinds of (intimatc) attachments that they are
predisposed to feel fearful of.
Within the athletic context, individuals’ &dquo;roles&dquo; and separate positions within
hierarchies are determined by competition within a clearly-defined system of
rules which govern the interactions of participants. Although most athletes will
&dquo;stretch&dquo; the rules as much as thcy can to gain an advantagc ovcr thcir opponents,
most have a respect, even a reverence, for the importance of rules as a codc of
conduct that places safe boundaries around their aggression and their
relationships with others. Without the rules, there would be chaos - both
physically and psychologically; there would be an incredibly frightcning need to
constantly ncgotiatc and rencgotiate relationships. And this is what feels truly
dangerous to mcn. So to Marvin Upshaw, the constant physical aggression that is
part of being a lineman in football felt more than &dquo;natural&dquo; to him - it clearly
provided a comfortable contcxt within which he developed a ccrtain kind of
relationship with other nlcl7.
I had this guy we played against in Denver by the name of Mike Kern... We
battled. He cnjoyed it, and I enjoyed it. But ncvcr was it a cheap shot, never did
he have me down and just drive my hcad into the ground, you know,
unnecessary stuff. We played a good, clean game of football. because we
respected each other. Now, if hc could knock me on my butt, he’d do it. And I’d
do it to him and help him up. Talk to him after the game, sit and talk with him
like I’m sittin’ here talkin’ to you. But while we’rc out there, now, we go at it.
And I loved it. Yeah, I loved it...
For most of the men whom I interviewed, successful competition within the
rulebound structure of sport was - at least for a time - the major basis of their
210
relationships with the world, and thus their identities. Aggression &dquo;within the
rules,&dquo; then is considered legitimate and safe (Bredemeier, 1983). But what
happens when legitimate (&dquo;legal&dquo;) aggression results in serious injury, as it so
often does in sport? Two of the men whom I interviewed, football player Jack
Tatum (discussed above), and former professional baseball player Ray Fosse,
were involved in frighteningly violent collisions, each of which resulted in serious
injury. In each incident, the play was &dquo;legal&dquo; - there was no penalty issued by
officials. And in the aftermath of each case, there was a lively public controversy
concerning &dquo;violence in sports.&dquo; A brief examination of these two men’s
retrospective definitions of these situations are instructive and helpful in
beginning to draw a link betwcen, on the one hand, the athlete’s experience and
construction of meaning surrounding his participation in violence, and on the
other hand, the larger social meanings surrounding such public incidents.
As was mentioned above, by the time Jack Tatum - &dquo;the assassin&dquo; - got to the
pros, he had become the kind of fearsome hitter that coaches dream of. And
though he took pride in the fact that he was not a &dquo;dirty&dquo; player (i.e., his hits were
within the rules), his problem was that he was perhaps too good at his craft.
&dquo;Intimidation&dquo; was the name of the game, but there was a growing concern within
football and in the sports media that Jack Tatum’s &dquo;knockouts&dquo; were too brutal.
In 1978, Tatum delivered one of his hits to an opposing wide receiver, Darryl
Stingley. Stingley’s neck was broken in two places, and he would never walk
again. All of a sudden, Tatum was labelled as part of a &dquo;criminal element&dquo; in the
NFL. Tatum was confused, arguing that this had been a &dquo;terrible accident,&dquo; but
was nevertheless simply a &dquo;routine play&dquo; which was &dquo;within the rules.&dquo;
I guess the thing that mystified me was that I could play for nine years and one
guy gets hurt and then everybody comes down on me, you know. It’s just like
for nine years I’ve been playing the game the wrong way: but I’ve made AllPro, I’ve been runner-up for Rookie of the Year, I’ve got all the honors playing
exactly the same way. So, you know, it just kind of mystified me as to why there
was just all of a sudden this stuff because a guy got hurt. It wasn’t the first time a
guy got paralyzed in football, so it really wasn’t that unusual. The [NFL]
Commissioner told me at one point that I should push people out of bounds
instead of hitting them. And nowhere in football have they ever taught you
that. As long as the guy’s on the football field, you’re supposed to hit him.
Ray Fosse was the recipient of a violent hit from Pete Rose in the 1970 All Star
as an estimated sixty million people watched on television. The situation
was simple: It was the twelfth inning, and Pete Rose, steaming around third base,
needed only to touch home plate in order to score the winning run; Fosse’s job as
the catcher was to block the plate with his body and hope that the ball arrived in
game,
time to catch it and tag Rose out. Rose arrived a split second before the ball did,
and, looking a lot like a football player delivering a &dquo;hit,&dquo; drove his body through
Fosse, and touched the plate safely. Fosse’s shoulder was separated, and despite
his youth, he never fully regained the powerful home run swing that hc had
demonstrated earlier that summer. Again a serious injury had resulted from a
technically &dquo;legal&dquo; play. Rose was seen by some as a hero, but others criticized
him, asking if it was &dquo;right&dquo; for him to hurt someone else simply to score a run in
what was essentially an exhibition game. Rose seemed as mystified by these
questions as Jack Tatum had been. Everyone knew that he was known as
&dquo;Charley Hustle&dquo;: &dquo;I play to win,&dquo; responded Rose, &dquo;I just did what I had to do.&dquo;
211
When I interviewed Fosse years later, well into retirement as a player, he
lamented the effect of the injury, but saw it not as the result of a decision on the
part of Pete Rose, but rather, as &dquo;a part of the game.&dquo; It was fate, an impersonal
force, which had broken his body - not an individual person. In fact, he felt
nothing but respect for Rose.
that play a million times since, replays they keep showing and
but I never once believed that he hit me intentionally. He’s just a
competitor, and I only wish that every other major league ball player played as
hard as he did, ’cause then you wouldn’t have fans upset because players were
making so much money and they’re not performing. But he’s a competitor. But
I would say that that was the beginning of a lot of pain and problems for me...
Clearly, one of the things that is happening in the Tatum and the Fosse cases is
what Bredemeier & Shields (1986) call &dquo;contextual morality&dquo;: the rcification of
the rules of the game provide a context which frees the participants from the
responsibility for moral choices. As long as the participants &dquo;play by the rules,&dquo;
they not only feel that they should be free from moral criticism, there is a perhaps
subconscious understanding that they are entitled to ,respect,&dquo; that form of
emotionally-distant connection with others which is so important to masculine
identity. Flagrant rule-violators, it is believed, are &dquo;violent,&dquo; and deserve to be
sanctioned; others like Tatum and Rose are &dquo;aggressive competitors,&dquo; deserving
of respect. But this distinction is shaken when serious injury result from &dquo;legal&dquo;
actions and public scrutiny raises questions about the individual morality of the
athletes themselves. Both Tatum and Fosse appear &dquo;mystified&dquo; by the framing of
the issue in terms of individual choice or morality: they just play by the rules.
I’ve
seen
showing,
The Costs of Violence for Athletes
I interviewed former pro football star Macarthur Lane in the upstairs office of the
health spa that he owns and manages. Retired now for several years, he appears
to be in excellent physical condition, and he makes his living helping others
achieve strong, healthier bodies. He was relaxed, sitting in a chair and resting his
feet on a table, talking about basketball. When I asked him how tall he was, I
received a startling reply:
’
Oh, I used to be about 6’2&dquo; - I’m about six even right now. All the vertebraes in
my neck, probably from all the pounding and stuff, the vertebraes used to be
farther apart - just the constant pounding and jarring. It hurts all the time. I
hurt all the time. Right now, that’s why I put my legs up here on the table, to
take the pressure off my lower back.
Here is one of the ultimate praradoxes of organized combat sports: top
athletes, who are often portrayed as the epitome of good physical conditioning
and health, are likely to suffer from a very high incidence of permanent injuries,
disabilitics, alcoholism, drug abuse, obesity, and heart problems. The
instrumental rationality which teaches athletes to view their own bodies as
machines and weapons with which to annihilate an objectified opponent
ultimately comes back upon the athlete as an alien force: the body-as-weapon
ultimately results in violence against one’s own body. In fact, a former
professional football player in the U.S. has an average life-expectancy of about 56
212
years (roughly fifteen years shorter than the overall avcrage lifc-expectancy of
U.S. males). U.S. foothall, of course, is especially brutal: Delvin Williams told
me that in his pro career, &dquo;six of eight off-seasons I had surgery, twice a two-forone - they cut me twice.&dquo; In a recent survey of retired professional football
players, 78% reported that they suffer physical disabilities related directly to
football, and 66% believe that having played football will negatively affect their
life-spans (Wojciechowski & Dufresnc, 1988). But this situation is not limitcd to
football. Bascball has had its share of casualties too. Ray Fosse’s interview with
me seemed to be an almost endless chronicle of injuries and surgeries. When
someone got injured, he explained, &dquo;We had a saying: ’Throw dirt on it, spit on it,
go play.&dquo;’ And Fosse did constantly &dquo;play hurt,&dquo; often with
... a lot of cortisone and just anything to kill the pain, just to go out and play. I
don’t know how many shots I had - I know I had a lot, because it was killing me.
And now, as I rotate my left arm, I can hear bone to hone, you know [laughs
ironically], bccawe it hcalcd back wrong.
And this parade of injuries is not limited to professional athletes. Nearly every
former athlete I interviewed had at least one story of an injury which disabled
him, at least for a time. Many had incurred serious injuries which had a
permanent impact on their health. Despite the fact that most worc these injurics
with pridc, like badges of masculine status, there is also a grudging
acknowledgement that one’s healthy body was a heavy price to pay for glory. But
to question their decisions to &dquo;give up&dquo; their bodies would ultimately mean to
question the entre institutionalized system of rules through which they had
succcssfully established rclationships and a sense of identity. Since this is usually
too threatening, former athletes instead are more likely to rationalize their own
injuries as &dquo;part of the game,&dquo; and claim that the pain contributed to the
development of &dquo;character,&dquo; and ultimately gained them the &dquo;respect&dquo; of others.
Other costs paid by athletes who play violent sports arc not so casy to measure.
But there is strong evidence that the extremely instrumental relationship to self
and others which athletes must develop in order to be successful in aggressive
competitive sports commonly results in pcrsonalities that arc more quick to anger
(Goldstein, 1984), in an increased devaluation of women and gay mcn (Connell.
1990; Sabo, 1985), and in an amplification of men’s already-existing tendency to
have problems developing and maintaining intimate relationships with women
and with other men (Messner, 1987a, lc~S7b).
heavy personal and interpersonal costs are paid by those who
organizcd sports. And it is absolutely crucial to recognize
participate
who these men arc. As Edwards (19-4) points out, poor and cthnic minority
In short,
in violent
males, because of poverty, institutionalized racism, and lack of other
career
options
disproportionately into sports careers - and into the
more dangerous positions within the &dquo;combat sports.&dquo; Males from more
privileged backrounds often play sports while in school, and their experience as
athletes may be status-enhancing, but because they face a wider range of
educational and career choices, they often opt out of sports at a relatively early
age, choosing instead to seek status and respect within less (physically) violent
competitive rulcbound structures (Messner, 1989). Young men from poor and
ethnic minority backgrounds face a constricted range of options (Gibbs, 1988).
Lacking other resources and choices, sports may appear, as they did for
are
&dquo;channelled&dquo;
213
Macarthur Lane, to be the one legitimate context in which a youngster from a
backround may establish a sense of (masculine) identity in the
world:
disadvantaged
I’d put my pants on and I’d go out on the football field with the intention that
I’m gonna do a job. And if that calls on me to hurt you, I’m gonna do it. It’s as
simple as that. I demand respect just like everybody else.
As the examples of Fosse and Tatum have illustrated, the meanings that
athletes construct around their participation in violent sports may come into
conflict with larger cultural meanings when these actions are framed as public
spectacle. The final section of this paper will draw some tentative conclusions
concerning the larger social meanings of sports violence for the construction of
the contemporary gender order.
Violence, Sport, and the Contemporary Gender Order
The
mythology and symbolism of contemporary combat sports such as football
probably meaningful and salient to viewers on a number of levels: patriotism,
militarism, and meritocracy are all dominant themes. But it is reasonable to
speculate that gender is a salient organizing theme in the construction of
meanings around sports violence. Consider thc words of a thirty-two year old
are
white professional-class male whom I interviewed:
A woman can do the same job as I can do - maybe even be my boss. But I’ll be
damned if she can go out on the field and takc a hit from Ronnie Lott.’7
Imbedded in this man’s statement are what I will argue are the two sides of the
malc spectators/sports violence relationship for the construction of the
contemporary gender order: Violent sports as spectacle provide linkages among
mean in the project of the domination of women, while at the sale tlnlc helping to
construct and clarify differences between various masculinities. The statement by
the man above is a clear indication that he is idcntifying with Ronnic Lott as u
ma~t, and the basis of the identification is the violcnt male body. Football, based
as it is on the most extreme possibilities of the male body (muscular bulk, and
explosive powcr used aggressively) is clcarly a world apart from women, who are
relegated to the role of chccrlmdcr/scx objects on the sideline, rooting their mcn
on. In contrast to the bare and vulnerable bodics of the cheerleaders, thc armored
male bodies of the football players are elevated to mythical status, and as such,
givc testimony to the undcniablc &dquo;fact&dquo; that here is at least one placc where men
are clearly superior to women. Yet it is also significant that this man was quite
aware that he (and perhaps 99% of the rest of the malc population of thc U.S.)
was probably equally incapable of taking a &dquo;hit&dquo; from the likes of Lott and living
to tell of it. These tow theines - identification and difference among men - will
briefly be discussed next.
Mishkind ( 986) argucs that with the decline of the practical relevance of
physical strength in work and in warfare, representations of the muscular male
body as strong, virile, and powerful have taken on increasingly important
ideological and symbolic significance in gender relations. Indeed, the body plays
such a central role in the construction of the contemporary gender order because
214
it is so closely associated with the &dquo;natural.&dquo; Yet a concrete examination of
athletes shows that the development of their bodies for competition takes a
tremendous amount of time, exercise, weight-training, and even use of illegal and
dangerous drugs such as steroids. Though the body is popularly equated with
nature, it is nevertheless an object of social practice (Carrigan, et. al. 1987;
Connell, 1987; 1990).
The embodiment of hegemonic masculinity entails the imbedding of force and
skill in the body. Men’s power over women thus becomes &dquo;naturalized,&dquo; and
clearly linked to the social distribution of violence (Connell, 1987:85). Sport is an
important organizing institution for this embodiment of masculinity. As a
practice, sport suppresses natural (sex) similarities, constructs differences, and
then, largely through the media, weaves a structure of symbol and interpretation
around these differences which naturalizes them (Hargreaves, 1986: 112).
Several recent theorists have suggested though, that the major ideological
salience of sport as mediated spectacle may lie not so much in violence as it does in
male spectators having the opportunity to identify with the muscular male body.
McCormack (1984), for instance argues that boxing films so routinize
instrumental violence that the psychological impact of the violence is diminished.
The films are really more about &dquo;Jock appeal&dquo; - a narcissistic preoccupation with
the male body. Morse (1983), in a fascinating analysis of the use of slow-motion
instant replays in football, argues that the visual representation of violence is
transformed by slow motion replays into &dquo;gracefulness.&dquo; The salience for gender
relations of the image of male power and gracc lies not in identification with
violence, Morse argues, but rather, in the opportunity to engage in an
identificatory male gaze which is both narcissistic and homoerotic. An additional
interpretation is possible here. Rather than concluding that the violence has no
meaning, it is reasonable to speculate that if men are using sports spectatorship to
narcissistically identify with the male body as a thing of beauty,. perhaps the
violence is an important aspect of the denial of the homoerotic element of that
identification.I’
It is also
construction
that the violence plays another important role: the
difference among men. As was stated above, it is
disproportionately males from lower socio-economic and ethnic minority
backgrounds who pursue athletic careers in violent sports. Privileged men might,
as Woody Guthrie once suggested, commit violence against others &dquo;with fountain
pens,&dquo; but with the exception of domestic violence against women and children,
physical violence is rarely a part of the everyday lives of these men. Yct violence
among men may still have important ideological and psychological meaning for
men from privileged backgrounds. There is a curious preoccupation
among
middle class males with movie characters who are &dquo;working class tough guys&dquo;
(Biskind & Ehrenreich, 1980), with athletes who are fearsome &dquo;hitters&dquo; and who
heroically &dquo;play hurt.&dquo; These violent &dquo;tough guys&dquo; of the culture industry - the
Rambos, the Jack Tatums, the Ronnie Lotts-are at once the heroes who &dquo;prove&dquo;
that &dquo;we men&dquo; arc superior to women and they play the role of &dquo;other,&dquo; against
whom privileged men define themselves as &dquo;modern.&dquo; They are, in a very real
sense, contemporary gladiators who are sacrificed in order that the elite may have
a clear sense of where they stand in the pecking order of inter-male dominance.
Their marginalization as men - signified by their engaging in the very violence
that makes them such attractive spectacles - contributes to the construction of
possible
of
215
hegemonic masculinity.
In the U.S.,
a
particularly
salient feature of this
contemporary construction of masculinities in sport is racism: it is indeed ironic
that so many young black males are attracted to sports as an arena in which to
become &dquo;respected,&dquo; yet once there, to be successful, they must become
intimidating, aggressive, and violent in order to survive. And then, the media
images of, for instance, Jack Tatum &dquo;exploding&dquo; Darryl Stingley, become
symbolic &dquo;proof&dquo; of the racist stereotype that black males are indeed &dquo;naturally
more
violent and aggressive.&dquo;
This research has demonstrated that contemporary &dquo;combat sports&dquo; provide a
in which a certain type of (violent) masculinity is embodied. The athletes
themselves often pay a heavy price in terms of health and relationships for their
participation in violent sports. Yet it has been suggested here that as cultural
symbols, these men serve to stabilize a structure of domination and oppression in
context
the gender order. The media’s framing of violent sports as public spectacle serves
both to unite men in the domination of women and to support the ascendence of
hegemonic masculinity and the continued marginalization of other masculinities.
Future research should focus on sports violence as an important axis through
which class, race, sexual preference, and gender difference and inequalities are
constructed and naluralized.
References:
ATYEO, D. , 1979: Blood & Guts: Violence in Sports. Paddington Press, New York.
BENNETT, R. S., WHITAKER, K. G.. SMITH, N. J. W., & SABLOVE, A. 1987:
"Changing the Rules of the Game: Reflections Towards A Feminist Analysis of Sport."
Women’s Studies International Forum
10(4).
BIANCHI, E. C. 1980: "The Super Bowl Culture of Male Violence." in Sabo & Runfola
(Eds.), Jock.
BISKIND, P. & EHRENREICH, B., 1980: "Machismo and Hollywood’s Working Class."
Socialist Review 10 (2/3).
BREDEMEIER, B. J., 1983: "Athletic Aggression: A Moral Concern." in J. H. Goldstein
(Ed.), Sports Violence.
BREDEMEIER, B. J. & Shields, D. L. 1986: "Athletic Aggression: An Issue of
Contextual Morality." Sociology of Sport Journal 3(1).
BROWNMILLER, S., 1975: Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape. Simon &
Schuster, New York.
BRYSON, L., 1987: "Sport and the Maintenance of Masculine Hegemony." Women’s
Studies International Forum 10 (4).
CARRIGAN, T., CONNELL, B.. & LEE, J., 1987: "Toward a New Sociology of
Masculinity." in H. Brod (Ed.) The Making of Masculinities: The new Men’s Studies.
Allen & Unwin, Boston.
CHODOROW, N., 1978: The Reproduction of Mothering. University of California Press,
Berkeley.
COAKLEY, J. J., 1978:
Sport in Society:
Issues and Controversies. C. V.
Mosby Co.,
St.
Louis.
CONNELL, B., 1985: "Masculinity, Violence and War." in Patton, P. & Poole, R. (Eds.),
War/Masculinity. Intervention Pub., Sydney.
CONNELL, R. W., 1987: Gender and Power. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.
1990 "An Iron Man: The
Body and
Some Contradictions of
Hegemonic Masculinity."
in
216
M.A. Messner & D. F. Sabo. (Eds.) Sport. Men and the Gender Order: Critical Feminist
Human Kineties Publishers, Champaign, IL.
CROSSET, T. W.. 1990: "Masculinity, Sexuality and the Development of Early Modern
Sport." in Messner. M. A. & Sabo. D. F(Eds.), Sport. Men and the Gender Order:
Critical Feminist Perspectives. Human Kineties, Publishers, Champaign, IL.
DUBBERT, J. L., 1979: A Man’s Place: Masculinity in Transition. Prentice-Hall. New
Perspectives.
Jersey.
DUNNING. E., 1986: "Sport as a Male Preserve: Notes on the Social Sources of Masculine
Identity and its Transformations."in N. Elias & E. Dunning (Eds.), Quest for
Excitement: Sport and Leisure in the Civilizing Process. Basil Blackwell. New York.
DUQUIN, M., 1984: "Power and Authority: Moral Consensus and Conformity in Sport."
International Review for Sociology of Sport 19(3/4).
EDWARDS, H., 1984: "The Collegiate Athletic Arms Race: Origins and Implications of
the ’Rule 48’ Controversy." Journal of Sport and Social Issues 8(1), Winter/Spring.
EWING, W., 1982: "The Civic Advocacy of Violence." M: Gentle Men for Gender Justice
8(Spring).
FAUSTO-STERLING.
A., 1985: Myths of Gender: Biological Theories About Women
and Men. New York: Basic Books, Inc.
GIBBS. J. T. (Ed.), 1988: Young, Black. and Male in America: An Endangered Species.
Dover, MA: Auborn House.
GILLIGAN, C. 1982: In A Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s
Development. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
GOLDSTEIN, J. H. (Ed.), 1983: Sports Violence. Springer-Verlag. New York. 1984
"Sports Violence." in D. S. Eitzen (Ed.). Sport in Contemporary Society (Second
Edition).St. Martin’s Press, New York.
GORN, E. J., 1986: The Manly Art: Bare-Knuckle Prize Fighting in America. Cornell
University Press, Ithaca.
HALL, M. A. (Ed.), 1987: "The Gendering of Sport, Leisure and Physical Education."
(Special Issue) Women’s Studies International Forum 10(4).
HARGREAVES, J. A., 1986: "Where’s the Virtue? Where’s the Grace? A Discussion of
the Social Production of Gender through Sport." Theory Culture & Society 3 (1).
KAUFMAN. M., 1987: "The Construction of Masculinity and the Triad of Men’s
Violence." in M. Kaufman (Ed.), Beyond Patriarchy : Essays by Men on Pleasure,
Power, and Change. Oxford University. Toronto.
KIMMEL, M. S., 1987: "Men’s Responses to Feminism at the Turn of the Century."
Gender & Society 1 (3) September.
KOMISAR. L., 1980: "Violence and the Masculine Mystique." in Sabo & Runfola (Eds.),
Jock.
LENSKYJ, H., 1986: Out of Bounds: Women, Sport and Sexuality. Women’s Press,
Toronto.Ont.
LEVER. J., 1976: "Sex Differences in the Games Children Play." Social Problems 23.
LORENZ. K., 1966: On Aggression. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., New York.
McCORMACK, T., 1984: "Hollywood’s Prizefight Films: Violence or ’Jock Appeal’?"
Journal of Sport and Social Issues 8 (2) Summer/Fall.
MESSNER, M., 1987a: "The Meaning of Success: The Athletic Experience and the
Development of Male Identity." in H. Brod (Ed.). The Making of Masculinities: The
New Men’s Studies. Allen & Unwin, Boston. 1987b: "The Life of a Man’s Seasons: Male
Identity in the Life Course of thc Jock." in M. S. Kimmel (Ed.). Changing Men: New
Directions in Research on Men and Masculinity. Sage, Beverly Hills. 1988: "Sports and
Male Domination: The Female Athlete as Contested Ideological Terrain." Sociology of
Sport Journal 5(3). 1989: "Masculinities and Athletic Careers." Gender & Society 3 (1).
MISHKIND, M. E.. RODIN, J., SILBERSTEIN, L. R., & STREIGEL-MOORE, R. H.,
1986: "The Embodiment of Masculinity: Cultural, Psychological, and Behavioral
Dimensions." American Behavioral Scientist 29 (5) May/June.
217
MOORE, R. A., 1966: Sports and Mental Health. Charles C’. Thomas, Puh., Springfield,
Illinois.
MORSE, M., 1983: "Sport on Television: Replay and Display." in E. A. Kaplan (Ed.),
Regarding Television: Critical Approaches. University Publications of America, Los
Angeles.
ORIARD, M., 1981: "Professional Football as Cultural Myth." Journal of American
Culture 4 (3). Fall.
PIAGET.J., 1965: The Moral Judgement of the Child. The Free Press, New York.
PLECK, J. H., 1982: The Myth of Masculinity. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
PRONGER, B., 1990: "Gay Jocks: A Phenomenology of Gay Men in Athleties."in M. A.
Messner & D. F. Sabo (Eds.), Sport, Men and the Gender Order: Critical Feminist
Perspectives. Human Kinetics Press, Champaign, IL.
RUBIN, L. B., 1982: Intimate Strangers: Men and Women Together. Harper & Row Pub.,
New York.
SABO, D., 1985:
"Sport, Patriarchy, and Male Identity: New Questions About Men and
Arena Review 9 (2), November. 1986: "Pigskin, Patriarchy and Pain." Changing
Men: Issues in Gender, Sex and Politics 16 (Summer).
SABO. D. F. & RUNFOLA, R. (Eds.). 1980: Jock: Sports and Male Identity. PrenticeHall. Englewood Cliffs. N.J.
SCHER, M. & STEVENS, M., 1987: "Men and Violence." Journal of Counseling and
Sport."
Development 65 (March).
SCHNEIDER, J. &
EITZEN, D. S., 1983: "The Structure of Sport and Participant
Violence." Arena Review 7(3). November.
SMITH, M. D., 1974: "Significant Other Influence on the Assaultive Behavior of Young
Hockey Players." International Review of Sport Sociology 3/4 (9). 1986 "Reaction to
’Athletic Aggression: An Issue of Contextual Morality’ by Bredemeier and Shields."
Sociology of Sport Journal 3(1).
THEBERGE, N., 1987: "Sport and Women’s Empowerment." Women’s Studies
International Forum 10(4).
UNDERWOOD, J., 1979: The Death of an American Game. Little. Brown Co., Boston.
VAZ, E. W., 1980: "The Culture of Young Hockey Players: Some Initial Observations." in
Sabo & Runfola (Eds.), Jock.
WOJCIECHOWSKI, G. &
DUFRESNE, C.. 1988: "Football Career is Taking Its Toll on
NFL’s Players." Los Angeles Times (June 26). Section III, pp. 1, 12-13.
Notes
,
1
The author is indebted to Bob Connell. Pierrette Hondagneu-Sotelo. Don Sabo. Charles
Varni. and the anonymous revieweis of IRSS for helpful comments on earlier drafts of this
paper.
2
Thirty men — each retired from athletic careers for at least five years — were interviewed
between 1983-1985. Most had played the "major" U.S. sports: football, basketball,
baseball. and track. Their ages ranged from21-48, with the median being 33. They were of
diverse racial, ethnic, and social class backgrounds. Twelve had played organized sports
through high school, eleven through college, and seven were former professional athletes.
(See Messner, 1987a, 1987b.) With the exception of one man who asked to remain
anonymous, I have used the real names of the athletes in this paper. I have reasoned that
using their actual names will be useful to readers who are familiar with the public
controversies surrounding the two violent incidents in U.S. professional baseball and
football, discussed later in the paper.
3
Another former football player whomI interviewed told me that "When Jack hit you, he’d
put your balls in your back pocket."
4
I am grateful to Cheryl Cole for this insight.
218
5
I
use
"gendering" rather than "gendered"
completed project, is always in construction
the term
never a
to
that gender identity is
person interacts with the social
emphasize
as a
world.
Females, on the other hand, bring different developmental issues to their interactions with
the social world. Whereas the major developmental issues for males involve ambivalence
with attachment, females’ major problems concern separation. And this has an impact on
how females play-and think about—sports (Duquin, 1984).
7
Lott is a contemporary "hitter" in the National Football League, along the same lines as
Jack Tatum once was.
8
There is ample evidence that the extreme "compulsory heterosexuality" of the
sportsworld contributes to the continued subordination of gay men, and thus the
perpetuation of heterosexual masculinity as hegemonic (Pronger, 1990).
6
Quand les corps sont des armes
Masculinit6 et violence dans le sport
Résllmé
Cet article
se base sur un cadre th6orique f6ministe pour explorer les significations sociales
contemporaines de la violence dans le sport. Deux niveaux de signification sont explords: en
premier lieu, les significations socioculturelles et idéologiques de la violence sportive en tant
que spectacle m6diatis6, en second lieu, les significations construites par les athletes
masculins eux-m~mes. Sur le plan social/id6ologiqLie, t’anafyse puise dans une lit6rature
critique/f6ministe en emergence qui situe th6oriquement et historiquement la violence dans
lc sport comme une pratique contribuant a 61ziborer une masculinit6 hegemonique. Et, sur
base de mes propres interviews approfondies d’anciens athletes masculins, une th6orie
f6ministe de l’identit6 sexuelle est utilis6e pour examiner les significations que les ~ithl~tes
construisent eux-m6nies autour de leur propre participation aux sports violents. Enfin,
I’article tente d’explorer ces deux niveaux d’analyse: comment la construciton de la
signification de 1’athlete concernant sa participation aux sports violents est-elle li6e aux
constructions sociales plus vastes des masculinit6s et des relations de pouvoir des hommes
avec
les femmes’?
Wenn der Kdrper zur Waffe wird
Minnlichkeit und Gewalt im Sport
.
ZusanunenJassiing
Der Beitrag verwendet einen feministischen, theoretischen Bezugsrahmen, um die gegenwartige soziale Bedeutung von Gewalt im Sport zu bestimmen. Zwei Bedeutungsebenen
werden erklart: erstens die breite, sozio-kulturelle und ideologische Bedeutung von Gewalt
im Sport als vermittelndes Spektakel, eine Bedeutung, die mannliche Athleten selbst konstruieren. Auf der sozialen/ideologischen Ebene bezieht sich die Analyse auf eine bekannte
kritisch-feministische Literatur, die theoretsich wie historisch Gewalt im Sport als eine Praxis beschreibt, die dazu beitragt m5nnliche Uberlegenheit zu konstruieren. In der Auswertung eigener narrativer Interviews mit ehemaligen mdnnlichen Athleten wird eine feministische Theorie der Geschlechtsidentitat verwendet, um die Bedeutung zu uberprufen. die
Athleten selbst ihrer eigenen Teilnahme an einer Gewalt am Sport beimessen. Schlief3lich
wird der Zusammenhang zwischen diesen beiden Analyseebenen versuchsweise ergrundet:
wie ist die Interpretation der Teilnahme an Gewalt im Sport verbunden mit der umfassenderen Konstruktion von M5nnilchkelt und mannlicher Kraft.
219
Cuando los cuerpos son armas:
masculinidad y violencia en el deporte
Re.sumen
Este articulo utiliza
un marco te6rico de referencia feminista para analizar el significado
contemporanco de la violencia en el deporte. Se analizan dos niveles de significado:
en primer lugar, el significado sociocultural e ideol6gico de la violencia en el deporte como
espectaculo; en segundo lugar, el significado que los mismos atletas atribuyen a este
fen6meno. A nivel social e ideol6gico, el analisis se basa en la literatura feminista
emergente la cual situa teorica e histbricamente la violencia deportiva como una prdctica
que ayuda a construir la hegemonia masculina. La teoria feminista respecto a la identidad
del g6nero es utilizada en el an5lisis de las entrevistas donde los atletas exponen los
significados que atribuyen a su participiici6n en deportes violentos. Finalmente se intentan
examinar los lazos existentes entre estos dos niveles de analisis: .due que modo los
significados atribuidos por los atletas en relac16n a su participacion en deportes violentos
conectan con la construccic5n social de la masculinidad y las relaciones de poder de los
social
hombres frente a las
mujeres?.
220
CTaTbR NCIIOJIb3yeT
§~eM0Hl4CTblqeCKy% TeOpeTHUeCKyD
06~eCTBeHHHe
Tore, uT06bT pa3bICK3Tb cer0j;H5qHme
THBHORO HaC0fll4A.
OHa MCJiejjyeT ABa ~IpOBHH
Bo-nepBbtx o6inecTBeHHO-KyjibTypHoe
KaK
aHa.rrHS
KPMTKqeCKZ4eMHHHCTmqecxyio
HBCHJIHe
IIOMOra10~I0I0
COp-
H,l~e0JI0rHUeCKNe
3HaqeHHe
3HaM2H3T8JIbHOCTb ~
MyZtIMHamm-cnopTcmeHami4. Ha o6mecTBeHHo-
cambmm
HReonorHUecxoM ypOBHe
~pTHBHoe
3Hau8HHA
3HaMeHaTeflbH0CTHl
fl0CpeflCTBeHHNfi Kpyr l4HTepeC0B, BO-BTOpbIX
o6pa3OBaHHyTo
,yxa.s~BaeT
Ha
HOBonoqBARME41010CR
nHTepaTypy, KOTOPAR npe~CTaBHT
KaK
Te0peT0UeCKH 5l I£CT0pI£UeCKX
BNpaC)OT3Tb npeBOCXO~HYID
lIpaKTYiKy~
M~77~CeCTB2HHOCTb. AHano3
rjiy6oKne HHTepBblO c wjxtiKEami4-CnOpTcmeHaHCnOJIb3yeT §leMHHl4CTl4UeCKyK Te0pHI0 0 fl0fleB0h mgeHTH4HOCTH,
gexaet CCBLUKY
MH,
H
CHCTeMY AAR
Ha MOM
qTO61i paCCMaTpbIB3Tb
0
Bbipa~3TbTBaIOT~CBO~M
Hen paCCMa,TpHBaeT
CBH3HBaeTCH
CHJIHH C
Te
3Hat.I2HHfi ~ KOTOpbie
3maCTBMX
CBfi3H
KOHCTpyKUbIH
B
cnOpTHBHOM
camm
H3CHJIYiH.
Me7KV ABYMMM ypOBHHMH
3HaUeHHH 0
yqaCTB00
B
pacmmpeHH09 o6qecTBeHHoR KOHCTpyKHMeM
H rJIBBeHCTBO
MYX4KH
no
cpaBHeHni
C
CIIOpTCMBHbI
OH
HaKO-
anajiMsa:
Cfl0pT0BH0M
KaK
Ha-
MyRCE’CTB2HHOCTIri
7~IeH~HH8MH.

- Michael Messner

Transcription

Similar documents

DVSN Brochure - The Bedford Citizen

A NEW DAY Brochure Women - The Tree of Peace Friendship Centre

Abuse in close relationships - Upplands

Tanisha M. Bagley - printhouse books

FIX THAT SPORTS BRAIN

Romanian Sport for All Federation

Russell Simmons, NYC Councilmen and Erica Ford announce New

Combatting Gender-related Violence

here - Legal Services of the Hudson Valley

Dia 1 - Association of Sport Performance Centres